Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

[Barbossa]

As reported on www.mania.com:

Roger Rabbit Sequel for Zemeckis?

Unfortunately I can't watch the interview video as it's not available in my region. Grrr. I like the good old days of the internet when it was region free.

[Coheteboy]

I'll save you the trouble. Some MTV guy asks Robert Zemeckis that since he's done a lot of Back to the Future movies, are there any older projects he would like to revisit now thanks to newer technology.

Zemeckis says "well i'll tell you what is buzzing around in my head now that we have the ability, the digital tools and performance capture... I'm starting to think about Roger Rabbit".

MTV: Please do it man. is it based on an old idea or a new idea?

Z: UUUUUHHHHHHH New idea.

MTV: will it look similar to the methods you used last time or totally new methods?

Z: Yes and no.

MTV: Is Charles Fleischer back for it?

Z: yes and no, yes and no.. i can't give you any more details



And that's about it.


Frankly, I'm scared. Motion capture is specifically something that Zemeckis embraces no matter how... ugh it looks. I mean, Beowulf looked real sometimes. But it was... it didn't feel right. Polar Express felt even more not right.

I would hate for Roger Rabbit to lose his 2D-ness because of "newer technologies". What made Roger Rabbit popular was the marriage of 2D and live action in a way never seen before. It's still unique even to this day.

3D and Live action has been done to death.

[Rocketeer Fan]

Yeah, I saw this too. I'd love to see another one made, but only if done right. If they can do motion capture, but have the final result appear to look 2D that might work, but in the end, I would much rather see it traditionally animated.

I wonder if they would set it in modern day and that be why he will be motion captured? I hope not, I love it set in the time period it is set in.

Has anyone ever read the original novel? Such a great book, the sequel was OK, but man, book 1 is so good.

I wish they'd do more Roger Rabbit shorts, those were fun.

[Monkey joe]

sign me up for the sequel. Best news ever.

[BlueSkyDriveBy]

If someone other than Kathleen Turner voices Jessica, forget it.

No Kathleen, no go.

[nathan detroit]

How can you mo-cap a wild toon like Roger? Two words - Im Possible.

The other issues are mainly ones of copyright. These problems already limit Roger's visibility in the parks and on merchandise and there is no way that Disney's rival studios would agree for their characters to appear together again.
However, the above problems are one of the reasons that I love WFRR - it is a one-of-a-kind original that can never be repeated.
Saying that I love the original concept of the sequel with Roger and Baby Herman starting out as musical stage performers in New York and heading cross-country to hit the bigtime in Hollywood.

[Rocker]

Yeah, I saw this too. I'd love to see another one made, but only if done right. If they can do motion capture, but have the final result appear to look 2D that might work, but in the end, I would much rather see it traditionally animated.

I wonder if they would set it in modern day and that be why he will be motion captured? I hope not, I love it set in the time period it is set in.

Has anyone ever read the original novel? Such a great book, the sequel was OK, but man, book 1 is so good.

I wish they'd do more Roger Rabbit shorts, those were fun.

I personally say they should set it up 22 years after the events of the first one and put in like the 1960's or something.

Animation reached it's golden age in 1947, and if they set it towards the end of the golden age, like 1969.

[knittingknerd]

Polar Express felt even more not right.

Polar Express scares me. The animation is so weird it gives me the heebees.

[Coheteboy]

Polar Express scares me. The animation is so weird it gives me the heebees.

Yah, it felt like some puppet show. Only the puppets were made with corpses of children.

And aside from that... it's an awful movie.

they sing a song about hot chocolate.

[nathan detroit]

I personally say they should set it up 22 years after the events of the first one and put in like the 1960's or something.

Animation reached it's golden age in 1947, and if they set it towards the end of the golden age, like 1969.

1969 was way past the death of the golden age. There was no place for Roger-style animation at that point in history. If it were set in 1959 the story could cover the demise of theatrical animation and the rise of TV but I would personally prefer a prequel.

[Rocketeer Fan]

Yah, it felt like some puppet show. Only the puppets were made with corpses of children.

That is so morbidlly wonderful! Funniest thing I heard to far today.

[knittingknerd]

Yah, it felt like some puppet show. Only the puppets were made with corpses of children.

And aside from that... it's an awful movie.

they sing a song about hot chocolate.

I don't mind the hot chocolate song. Heck I would sing about cupcakes if I could carry a tune, and I will admit I adore Tom Hanks (and his son.). But you're right the animation looks... off. It reminds me of shiny masks put on weird animatronics, and the masks not fitting right. It's unsettling. And the book is really good. I just don't like that animation style maybe.

[nathan detroit]

Let's see what Christmas Carol brings....

[Coheteboy]

I don't mind the hot chocolate song. Heck I would sing about cupcakes if I could carry a tune, and I will admit I adore Tom Hanks (and his son.). But you're right the animation looks... off. It reminds me of shiny masks put on weird animatronics, and the masks not fitting right. It's unsettling. And the book is really good. I just don't like that animation style maybe.

I don't mind if normal people have a sudden burst of song about hot chocolate, but if a major motion picture is already based on a book that short and they're trying to stretch it out, a song about Hot Chocolate is just really a sign that they're out of ideas and it shouldn't have been made.

One of these days someone's going to remake that into a live action movie and it'll be infinitely better than motion capture.

[Jessicalover]

While I love Roger and the whole gang (I'm sure that's hard to tell by my screen name right )and have read both books I'd rather not see any attempt to do a sequel unless it is do the right way and that is with traditional animation. that plus I want the right cast i.e. Charles Fleischer as the voice of Roger, Kathleen Turner as Jessica's voice and Amy Irving as her singing voice,as well as Bob Hoskins as Eddie. And time line wise I'd like to see it shortly after the original movie was set maybe with in a 5 year period. I don't know if I'd use the second book Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit? or not for the basis of a movie.
I would wonder if the would need Gary K Wolf's ok to do a new movie or not? I know there were things he was not happy with when they did Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I would like to see more of the shorts done though. With all that said I am a fan of any idea that gets Jessica back on screen but it has to be done right!